[Priaptor]

  Do you feel X is the most analytical of Audeze headphones? I know it's a bit strange question as all the Audeze headphones are very musical, but relatively, by comparison, could one say that?

I will weigh in if you don't mind.  I understand your thinking the question somewhat "strange" BUT it isn't as neutral, accuracy and analytical is something we all struggle with.  From my experience and as a former owner of Avalon, Wilson, Magico and now NOLA speakers and in my days as a dealer where I sold ProAc, Quads, Celestion among others, I think I understand the difference and approaches to trying to meet the goal of these adjectives.  One can have a very "neutral and transparent" speaker, such as a Magico and not find them engaging.  You can have a fairly colored speaker, like some of the original and amazing ProAcs and find them involving and amazing.  My preference is accurate and huge soundstage with a relatively neutral sound.  When people talk "analytical" many love, especially when first embarking on this crazy hobby, to equal "analytical" with an unnatural detail with accentuation of higher octaves that in a short period of time becomes very fatiguing.  So by my definition of analytical, I use it to mean most natural and lifelike to the source and I find the X more so than the 3F, if that makes any sense.  

 

[longbowbbs]

 

  Do you feel X is the most analytical of Audeze headphones? I know it's a bit strange question as all the Audeze headphones are very musical, but relatively, by comparison, could one say that?

I will weigh in if you don't mind.  I understand your thinking the question somewhat "strange" BUT it isn't as neutral, accuracy and analytical is something we all struggle with.  From my experience and as a former owner of Avalon, Wilson, Magico and now NOLA speakers and in my days as a dealer where I sold ProAc, Quads, Celestion among others, I think I understand the difference and approaches to trying to meet the goal of these adjectives.  One can have a very "neutral and transparent" speaker, such as a Magico and not find them engaging.  You can have a fairly colored speaker, like some of the original and amazing ProAcs and find them involving and amazing.  My preference is accurate and huge soundstage with a relatively neutral sound.  When people talk "analytical" many love, especially when first embarking on this crazy hobby, to equal "analytical" with an unnatural detail with accentuation of higher octaves that in a short period of time becomes very fatiguing.  So by my definition of analytical, I use it to mean most natural and lifelike to the source and I find the X more so than the 3F, if that makes any sense.  

+1 This....

 

[RCBinTN]

  Do you feel X is the most analytical of Audeze headphones? I know it's a bit strange question as all the Audeze headphones are very musical, but relatively, by comparison, could one say that?

Not a strange question, at all.  Your Head-Fi associates are here to help...
 
I own the X and XC, and have auditioned the 2F and 3F.  That completes the LCD line-up.
All are great cans, in their own respect.  Different price points and design elements.
 
Regarding the Audez'e "house sound"  2F > 3F > X > XC.
 
The house sound is warmer.  The 2F are the warmest and a bit less resolving than the rest, although addition of the fazor has brought the 2F closer to the other Audez'e cans.  They are a great value for $1000.
 
The 3F and X are very similar.  Their sound is excellent.  Impedances are somewhat different: the X are 22 ohms and the 3F are about 120 ohms.  The 3F have wood. The X have metal.  IMO, the midrange of the X is more open, while the 3F mids are warmer.  The rest of the sound stages are similar.  The 3F sound is very inviting - as it should be as the flagship of the brand.
 
The XC are the outliers.  The only closed HP's in the stable.  They do not leak much sound, and at the same time they do not block much incoming sound.  The cans exhibit much less of the Audez'e "warm" sound and tend toward the Senn HD800 resolution, although they are not nearly as clinical as the HD800.  A really good can for classical, instrumental and jazz music.  They have a brighter sound than any other Audez'e HP, but very nice/balanced upper mids and treble and plenty of bass.
 
So, I would conclude that the XC are the most "analytical" of the Audez'e cans.  Personally, I like the X the best for most of my music.  They pull you in, while not being overly warm.  The XC keep you in the middle of the band and separate the instruments really well...so then, it comes down to the type of music you listen to, and the volume you listen, and your amp.  Oh, the variables...
 
Hope this helps -
Enjoy the music...
RCBinTN

 

[korzena]

  Not a strange question, at all.  Your Head-Fi associates are here to help...
 
I own the X and XC, and have auditioned the 2F and 3F.  That completes the LCD line-up.
All are great cans, in their own respect.  Different price points and design elements.
 
Regarding the Audez'e "house sound"  2F > 3F > X > XC.
 
The house sound is warmer.  The 2F are the warmest and a bit less resolving than the rest, although addition of the fazor has brought the 2F closer to the other Audez'e cans.  They are a great value for $1000.
 
The 3F and X are very similar.  Their sound is excellent.  Impedances are somewhat different: the X are 22 ohms and the 3F are about 120 ohms.  The 3F have wood. The X have metal.  IMO, the midrange of the X is more open, while the 3F mids are warmer.  The rest of the sound stages are similar.  The 3F sound is very inviting - as it should be as the flagship of the brand.
 
The XC are the outliers.  The only closed HP's in the stable.  They do not leak much sound, and at the same time they do not block much incoming sound.  The cans exhibit much less of the Audez'e "warm" sound and tend toward the Senn HD800 resolution, although they are not nearly as clinical as the HD800.  A really good can for classical, instrumental and jazz music.  They have a brighter sound than any other Audez'e HP, but very nice/balanced upper mids and treble and plenty of bass.
 
So, I would conclude that the XC are the most "analytical" of the Audez'e cans.  Personally, I like the X the best for most of my music.  They pull you in, while not being overly warm.  The XC keep you in the middle of the band and separate the instruments really well...so then, it comes down to the type of music you listen to, and the volume you listen, and your amp.  Oh, the variables...
 
Hope this helps -
Enjoy the music...
RCBinTN

Thank for the detailed answer.
I listen to various genres of electronic music as well as some pop and vocal.
I had once auditioned 3 and X in a store. At that time I wasn't able to decide which one I liked better. Depending on a song I preferred one over another. I liked X for having more air/space and they were impressive with a lot of electronic music. 3 seemed to have even a bit more resolution and to be more cohesive. What I didn't like about 3 was that they were quite closed-sounding like my 2. But it was a short audition and I didn't have a good ear for auditioning that day.
It's interesting to hear that XC could be most analytical of all. It would be great to audition the three models side by side.

 

[514077]

And now for a kindergarten question.  Don't want to screw up my LCD-Xpensive phones.
Applying the leather comfort strip involves simply removing the screws where the phone attaches to the headband?

 

[money4me247]

  And now for a kindergarten question.  Don't want to screw up my LCD-Xpensive phones.
Applying the leather comfort strip involves simply removing the screws where the phone attaches to the headband?

yup, it's easy-peazy and totally reversible.

 

[jjacq]

What would are the popular amps used with the X? While I'm saving up for a Liquid Carbon, I'm trying to weigh out my other options.
 
Ok I've been looking through my options in this thread so I'll answer it myself. I would love some feedback though.

1) Mjolnir
2) Conductor
3) EF-6
4) V281
5) Master-9
 

What else am I missing?

 

[snip3r77]

What would are the popular amps used with the X? While I'm saving up for a Liquid Carbon, I'm trying to weigh out my other options.

Ok I've been looking through my options in this thread so I'll answer it myself. I would love some feedback though.


1) Mjolnir
2) Conductor
3) EF-6
4) V281
5) Master-9



What else am I missing?

GSX Mk 2? http://www.headamp.com/home_amps/gsx/index.htm
Bottlehead S.E.X
Woo Audios ?
La Figaro 339 ?

 

[planet]

GSX Mk 2? http://www.headamp.com/home_amps/gsx/index.htm
Bottlehead S.E.X
Woo Audios ?
La Figaro 339 ?

 
I can validate that the GS-X Mk2 is a damn fine, even gorgeous, pairing with the LCD-X.

 

[Zoom25]

   
I can validate that the GS-X Mk2 is a damn fine, even gorgeous, pairing with the LCD-X.

Hey, you finally got your GS-X. How does it compare to the Source?

 

[jjacq]

 
Hey, you finally got your GS-X. How does it compare to the Source?

 
Nice how do are you liking the DC-1? I am planning to pair that with a Mjolnir for the LCD-X.

 

[MacedonianHero]

   
I can validate that the GS-X Mk2 is a damn fine, even gorgeous, pairing with the LCD-X.

 
Pretty much my experiences too. 

 

[groovyd]

Let a coworker have a listen to my LCD-XC + WA7+tp (mullards) work rig today and he was sorta giggling about how crazy i were to have spent so much on music the day before and his mouth just dropped to the floor and he wouldn't give them back up for about an hour and a half... changed his stance by the end of that demo 

 

 

[Zoom25]

   
Nice how do are you liking the DC-1? I am planning to pair that with a Mjolnir for the LCD-X.

DC-1 has been excellent in functionality and sound, especially given the price. Fully recommend it. DC-1 gets used as a home theatre master unit for use with monitors. Decent footprint on the desk as well. I've been using it for over a year now and used it every day for multiple hours. Worth every penny.

 

[planet]

 
Hey, you finally got your GS-X. How does it compare to the Source?

 
For starters, I'm still using the Source DAC.  Just to be clear about that.
 
Here's where I'm at right now, and I'm sorry if this drifts a little off-topic:
 
Upgrading the amp has made a noticeable difference.  Not nearly as potent as the difference in headphones, of course, but noticeable.  The first 10 seconds of listening suggested the difference was there, but subtle.  The next 10 minutes had me thinking the difference was more than subtle, but still somewhat minor, and I was wondering if I'd made a wise purchasing decision: another nearly $3k for this?  ...But after 10 hours, the difference probably didn't increase that much in absolute magnitude terms, but the character of the difference is now much more familiar to me, and it looms larger in my mind than it actually is because my attention dwells there when I listen.  And that difference is something very special.
 
There's a noticeable uptick in resolution and clarity, and the music has the impression of being more textured -- something that required time to explore, but having explored, is beautiful and deeply satisfying.  If the LCD-X hadn't spoiled me for its glorious sense of presence, I think I'd be regaling the GS-X for another notch in that direction -- more presence or liveliness or some sense like that.
 
That said, the Source is fantastic, and delivers 80-90% of the impact of the GS-X amp.  I think it's a wonderfully flexible desktop device with very good value, and I'm going to keep it and for most listening at my desktop, I won't miss the GS-X.
 
...But that last 10-20% is seductive, and when I have time to sit back in my leather chair and close my eyes, that's when it's all worth it.  Drawing from past experience with amps I've spent time with in my own home, the GS-X reminds me most of the Dark Star, except less dark.    What is perhaps most remarkable about the GS-X is how descriptors of its character elude me.  Part of it seems very Source-like -- but then I remembered that I'm listening to the Source's DAC, and if the GS-X is really as transparent as I've read (and as I'm experiencing for myself, finally), then perhaps this makes sense.  You are paying money to remove obfuscation from your audio chain, focusing on the character of the material and the speakers.  (And the DAC, if it's injecting or introducing anything.)
 
The LCD-X is a beautiful pairing.  My preference is for a sound that's a tick warmer than neutral, clear but not clinical -- and this pairing delivers.  I swear the LCD-X sounds a bit wider and more open with the GS-X than with the Source... like the music has a bit more 3D room to breathe.  It's hard to explain.
 
The HE-6 with the GS-X is also excellent.  Need to spend some time with the XC, next.
 

 
(Yes, I've subsequently moved the Source off the amp section of the GS-X.  *cough*)